Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Vegan-vegetarian low-protein supplemented diets in pregnant CKD patients: fifteen years of experience

  • Rossella Attini,
  • Filomena Leone,
  • Silvia Parisi,
  • Federica Fassio,
  • Irene Capizzi1,
  • Valentina Loi4,
  • Loredana Colla5,
  • Maura Rossetti5,
  • Martina Gerbino,
  • Stefania Maxia4,
  • Maria Grazia Alemanno,
  • Fosca Minelli,
  • Ettore Piccoli,
  • Elisabetta Versino2, 3,
  • Marilisa Biolcati,
  • Paolo Avagnina6, 7,
  • Antonello Pani4,
  • Gianfranca Cabiddu4,
  • Tullia Todros and
  • Giorgina B. Piccoli6, 7Email author
BMC NephrologyBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201617:132

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-016-0339-y

Received: 2 February 2016

Accepted: 29 August 2016

Published: 20 September 2016

Abstract

Background

Pregnancy in women with advanced CKD becoming increasingly common. However, experience with low-protein diets in CKD patients in pregnancy is still limited.

Aim of this study is to review the results obtained over the last 15 years with moderately restricted low-protein diets in pregnant CKD women (combining: CKD stages 3-5, proteinuria: nephrotic at any time, or > =1 g/24 at start or referral; nephrotic in previous pregnancy). CKD patients on unrestricted diets were employed for comparison.

Methods

Study period: January, 2000 to September, 2015: 36 on-diet pregnancies (31 singleton deliveries, 3 twin deliveries, 1 pregnancy termination, 1 miscarriage); 47 controls (42 singleton deliveries, 5 miscarriages). The diet is basically vegan; since occasional milk and yoghurt are allowed, we defined it vegan-vegetarian; protein intake (0.6–0.8 g/Kg/day), keto-acid supplementation, protein-unrestricted meals (1–3/week) are prescribed according to CKD stage and nutritional status. Statistical analysis was performed as implemented on SPSS.

Results

Patients and controls were similar (p: ns) at baseline with regard to age (33 vs 33.5), referral week (7 vs 9), kidney function (CKD 3-5: 48.4 % vs 64.3 %); prevalence of hypertension (51.6 % vs 40.5 %) and proteinuria >3 g/24 h (16.1 % vs 12.2 %). There were more diabetic nephropathies in on-diet patients (on diet: 31.0 % vs controls 5.3 %; p 0.007 (Fisher)) while lupus nephropathies were non-significantly higher in controls (on diet: 10.3 % vs controls 23.7 %; p 0.28 (Fisher)). The incidence of preterm delivery was similar (<37 weeks: on-diet singletons 77.4 %; controls: 71.4 %). The incidence of other adverse pregnancy related outcomes was non-significantly lower in on-diet patients (early preterm delivery: on diet: 32.3 % vs controls 35.7 %; birth-weight = <1.500 g: on diet: 9.7 % vs controls 23.8 %). None of the singletons in the on-diet series died, while two perinatal deaths occurred among the controls (p = 0.505).

The incidence of small for gestational age (SGA <10th centile) and/or extremely preterm babies (<28th week) was significantly lower in singletons from on-diet mothers than in controls (on diet: 12.9 % vs controls: 33.3 %; p: 0.04 (Fisher)).

Conclusion

Moderate protein restriction in the context of a vegan-vegetarian supplemented diet is confirmed as a safe option in the management of pregnant CKD patients.

Keywords

Low-protein dietsSupplemented dietsPregnancyCKDMaternal-foetal outcomesSmall for gestational age babyPreterm delivery

Background

When we prescribed a low-protein diet to the first pregnant patient with severe proteinuria and diabetic nephropathy (a case which gave us the opportunity to start a “joint venture” between Nephrology and Obstetrics), we did not foresee that fifteen years later our Unit would have followed-up a few hundred pregnancies, about 5 % of which involved subjects on a protein-restricted diet [15]. We also did not foresee that several large studies would have challenged the “meat eaters” in favour of Mediterranean or vegetable-based diets, thus leading to reconsider the role of protein intake in the overall population, as well as in CKD [614]. We were mainly worried about the patient’s increasing levels of proteinuria, and we did not know what else we could do besides keeping blood pressure under control, ordering bed rest (still a widely used procedure) and checking the baby’s growth curve [1].

On the basis of the available data on hyper-filtration in CKD and on the effect of low-protein diets in reducing the “work load” on the remnant nephrons, we chose to start her on the diet that we considered the “best” one available in our hands, i.e. a low-protein, vegan, supplemented diet [1518].

After our patient delivered a healthy male baby, adequate for gestational age, at the 30th gestational week, we started prescribing a low-protein, vegan-vegetarian diet, with a simplified qualitative schema, to other pregnant patients with severe kidney function impairment or relevant proteinuria [1]. Our first results, involving 12 pregnancies, were promising enough to double the number of patients in a few years [2, 4]. The subsequent analysis on 22 live-born singleton deliveries showed the almost paradoxical finding of better growth in children delivered by on-diet mothers as compared to children of CKD mothers on an unrestricted diet [4].

At the time of our first experiences, 1–1.2 g of proteins /Kg day was considered the “normal” protein intake, and the intake in pregnant women was often higher, thus making our diets conflicting with the common beliefs in pregnancy. However, interest in vegan-vegetarian diets grew over the following years, and they are now considered safe in all phases of life, including pregnancy and lactation, provided that vitamins and microelements were controlled and integrated when needed [1931].

Meanwhile, we gradually integrated the recommendation that patients should avoid both excessive weight gain; this was carried out by shifting from a purely qualitative diet prescription to the present qualitative-quantitative one [2, 4] (Appendix).

The main drawback of our previous studies was the difficulty of recruiting a homogeneous control group [2, 4]. Thus, the novelty of the present analysis, which is aimed at reviewing the results gathered over 15 years, is that the results of on-diet pregnancies are compared to a composite larger control group of pregnancies with similar clinical characteristics.

Methods

Definitions and control policies

CKD was defined and staged according to K-DOQI guidelines, whenever possible according to pre-conceptional data. Throughout pregnancy, GFR and proteinuria were assessed by 24-h urine collections, as specified more in detail elsewhere [5].

A newborn was defined as Small for Gestational Age (SGA) when birth weight was below the 5th or below the 10th centile, according to the birth weight references that were used [3234]. Due to the specific interest in this point, we employed both the older Italian Parazzini charts and the newer INeS (Italian Neonatal Study) charts, and analysed the two cut-points at the 5th and 10th percentile [33, 34]. Preterm delivery, early preterm delivery and extremely preterm delivery were defined as before 37, 34 and 28 completed weeks of gestational age, respectively [32].

Hypertension was defined as per the current guidelines; the antihypertensive treatment was mainly based upon a combination of alphamethyl-dopa and nifedipine, adding doxazosine, small doses of diuretics or clonidine only when absolutely needed. Treatment was adjusted at every clinical visit with a target of 120–130/60–70 mmHg [5].

The study was performed in two Italian settings: Torino and Cagliari. These are the two Centers with the greatest experience of management of CKD in pregnancy in Italy, that keep a conjoint database (TOCOS: Torino Cagliari Observational Study [5]). For the sake of this study, the cases were recruited in Torino, the controls were selected in both settings, as further specified. In both settings of care, the frequency of nephrological and obstetric visits, of blood and urine tests and of biometric and Doppler studies of uterine and umbilical arteries are tailored to the individual patient (visits: 1 week–1 month, biometry every 2–3 weeks in case of SGA babies or at risk for foetal growth restriction; Doppler assessment two-three times weekly in case of Doppler anomalies), in keeping with the Italian best practices in pregnant CKD patients [35, 36].

The low-protein diet

The low protein diet consisted in an adaptation of the low-protein vegan diet employed in our centre, itself a simplification of the original scheme by Barsotti and Giovannetti [17, 18].

Unlike the Barsotti and Giovannetti diets, our basic schemas are simplified: the food is chosen according to a qualitative approach (allowed-forbidden), not weighed, with a protein intake of 0.6 g/Kg/day (ideal weight), and 1–3 free meals per week. To allow the patient to follow a vegan diet without the need to use legumes and cereals in each meal, we added a supplementation of alpha-keto analogues and aminoacids (Alpha-Kappa or Ketosteril according to the availability over time): 1 pill/10 Kg of ideal body weight [37, 38].

In an empirical attempt to balance the potential advantages of low-protein diets in CKD and the habit of increasing protein intake in pregnancy, we initially adjusted the diet from 0.6 to 0.6–0.8 g/Kg/day of proteins, based on pre-conception weight, usually by increasing the protein intake from the first (0.6 g/Kg/day) to the last trimester (0.8 g/Kg/day). We also increased the amino and keto-acids supplementation from 1 pill each 10 Kg to 1 pill each 8 Kg, and in patients with low body weight, even up to 1 pill each 5 Kg in late pregnancy.

At the time of the first case, no report on these issues had been found or made available by the company; no report on safety concerns was available at that time or was found at the subsequent updates.

Since patients often missed milk and yoghurt in their diets, we allowed small quantities (100–150 mL per day) in selected cases, and changed the definition of “vegan” into “vegan-vegetarian”. On the basis of the functional status, of the proteinuria levels and of the patients’ needs and preferences, in keeping with the policy applied to non-pregnant patients, we allowed 1–3 unrestricted meals per week (without protein restriction but limited in unsaturated fats and short-chain sugars).

On the account of the lack of indications on salt restriction in pregnancy, we did not restrict salt; since salt intake cannot be controlled by the analysis of the 24 h excretion in pregnancy, due to the lack of referral standards, we limited our interventions to diet counselling in the cases with severe oedema or uncontrolled hypertension.

In addition to the biochemical tests (targeted at CKD), we progressively added iron status, B12, and 25-OH vitamin D to the routine monthly tests; vitamins and iron supplements were employed on the basis of the biochemical results. Erythropoietin was used when needed, with a haemoglobin target of 10 g/dL on account of the physiological haemodilution of pregnancy.

The most recent version of the diet is reported in the Appendix.

Indications for the diet and selection of controls

The main indications for the low-protein vegan-vegetarian diets in pregnancy were progressively broadened from the initial subjects with CKD stages 4-5 and/or nephrotic syndrome to include pregnancy in patients already on a supplemented vegetarian diet; CKD stages 3b or 3 with a progression trend before or during pregnancy; proteinuria above 3 g/day at any time of pregnancy, or proteinuria above 1 g/day at referral or in the first trimester, previous nephrotic syndrome, increase or development of proteinuria without any sign of preeclampsia, or a combination of any of these elements.

The controls were selected according to the same criteria from the Torino and Cagliari cohort. While the nephrologists’ approach was very similar, in keeping with our well-established cooperation, the Torino and Cagliari Units differed with regard to the Obstetric policy towards caesarean sections (more frequently performed in Cagliari [5]), therefore this outcome was not considered in the present study.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analysis was performed as appropriate (mean and standard deviation for parametric and median and range for non-parametric data). Paired T-test, Chi-square test, Fisher’s test, Mid-p test, and Wilcoxon’s test were used for comparisons between patients and controls and to evaluate the differences from referral to delivery in patients and controls. Significance was set at <0.05.

Statistical evaluation was performed using SPSS vers18.0 for Windows (SPSS Chicago Ill, USA).

Ethical issues

Systematic counselling about the diet was provided. Patients were informed that few data on the supplemented diet during pregnancy were available outside of our group, furthermore, the limits and goals of the low-protein diets were extensively discussed. The importance of timely reporting of side effects or doubts was underlined; a written schema, progressively updated, was supplied. The first version is available elsewhere [5]. The most recent update is available in the Appendix.

The study was approved by the Ethics committee of the OIRM Sant’Anna (n° pratica 335; n° protocollo 11551/c28.2 del 4/3/2011). All patients signed a dedicate informed consent.

Results

Baseline data

The main baseline data of the 36 patients who followed the diet for at least one month and of the 31 patients who delivered a live-born singleton baby (excluded: 3 twin deliveries, 1 pregnancy termination following the mother’s wishes, 1 spontaneous miscarriage) are reported in Table 1. Two patients in the on-diet group undertook two pregnancies.
Table 1

Baseline data: “On-diet”: 36 pregnancies in patients who followed a supplemented vegan diet in pregnancy (31 singleton deliveries)

Case

Age (yrs)

Pre-conceptional; Referral-week

Kidney disease

sCr mg/dL (EPI-GFR mL/min)

CKD stage

PtU (g/24 h)

Pt/Alb (g/dL)

HT

Therapy at referral

BMI

1

35

pre; ICSI

Diab neph

1.2 (59)

3

2.5

5.9/2.8

Yes

Insulin, doxazosine

23.5

2

35

pre; 8w

Diab neph

1.6 (45)

4

1.8

6.5/3.8

No

Insulin

22

3

28

7w

Sponge kidney

3.2 (19)

4

0.8

6.5/3.5

No

EPO, Vit. D

22

4

37

pre; 6w

Diab neph

1.2 (58)

3

5.9

5.8/3.2

No

Insulin

22

5

32

6w

SLE

0.7 (115)

1

2.7

6.0/3.1

Yes

Pred., ASA, omeprazole, a-MD

24

6

35

pre; 7w

Reflux

3.2 (18)

4

1.0

8.4/4.5

Yes

Vit. D, b-blocker ASA

19

7

29

9w

Diab neph

1.5 (47)

3

6.3

6.6/3.6

Yes

Insulin, nifedipine

20

8

38

17w

fibrillary GN

0.6 (116)

1

3.6

5.8/2.6

No

None

22

9

32

6w

Kidney graft

1.2 (60)

2

0.5

6.9/4.0

No

Pred., CyA, ranitidine, ASA,

24

10

20

5w

SLE

0.6 (132)

1

2.5

6.8/3.3

No

Pred.

21

11

37

7w

Kidney graft

1.5 (44)

3

0.8

7.0/3.9

Yes

Pred., CyA, VitD, nifedipine, ASA EPO, ranitidine

27

12

30

6w

IgA GN

1.3 (55)

3

0.7

6.9/4.1

No

Levothyroxine

18.9

13

28

10w

IgA GN

1 (77)

2

2

6.6/3.7

No

None

19.9

14

36

pre; 5w

Diab neph

1 (68)

2

0.6

6.4/4.1

Yes

Lansoprazole, levothyroxine, ASA, Niphedipine, insulin,

21.5

15

35

7w

Diab neph

1.2 (56)

3

0.7

7.4/4.3

No

Insulin

18.2

16

40

24w

Diab neph

0.9 (76)

2

3.1

6.7/3.3

Yes

Insulin, levothyroxine, Nifedipine

24

17

36

20w

IgA GN

1.1 (64)

2

2.4

5.6/4.1

No

None

22.3

18

36

pre; 7w

SLE

2.9 (20)

4

3.4

6.5/3.9

Yes

Pred., levothyroxine, a-MD

24.5

19

38

6w

FSGS

0.6 (116)

1

2.1

6.3/3.3

No

CyA

25

20

33

pre; 8w

Kidney graft

1.3 (52)

3

0.2

7.2/3.9

Yes

Pred, TAC

30

21

31

pre; 9w

Sponge kidney

1.6 (43.3)

3

0.3

6.5/4.0

Yes

ASA, a-MD

23.4

22

33

pre; 7w

Reflux

0.7 (110.4)

1

0.8

6.0/3.7

Yes

ASA, b-bloc

21.8

23

38

pre; 6w

Pyelonephritis

1.2 (59)

3

0.2

6.5/3.9

Yes

a-MD

19.7

24

26

5w

Single kidney, previous HUS

1 (78)

2

0.3

6.8/3.8

Yes

ASA

23.4

25

41

pre; 7w

GN

0.8 (86.6)

2

0.8

7.2/3.8

Yes

ASA

33.6

26

32

6w

IgA GN

1 (74.7)

2

0.6

6.8 /3.9

No

ASA

24.9

27

36

18w

Diab neph

0.7 (106.3)

1

0.9

7.4/4.4

Yes

ASA, a-MD, Insulin

34

28

33

27w

LLAC

0.4 (136.2)

1

1.3

6.0/3.6

Yes

a-MD

29.7

29

33

14w

Unknown

0.8 (105.6)

1

2.2

5.7/3.0

No

ASA

24.8

30

32

30w

Unknown

1.7 (39.6)

3

0.1

6.2/3.6

No

/

26.7

31

31

8 w

Diab neph

1.48 (47)

3

0.1

6.78/4.68

No

ASA, Insulin

19.5

32 (twin)

31

21w

Diab neph

0.5 (128)

1

5.4

5.5/2.8

No

Insulin, levothyroxine

17.9

33 (twin)

37

12w

Unknown

0.7 (112)

1

0.8

7.1/3.5

No

None

31.4

34 (twin)

39

11 w

Previous PNA

0.57 (184.1)

1

0.29

6.11/3.37

No

ASA

32.32

35 (termination)

26

18w

MGN

0.6 (126)

1

5.5

5.1/2.3

No

None

19

36 (miscarriage)

37

7w

Kidney graft

1.7 (38)

3

0.1

6.9/3.9

Yes

Pred., TAC, EPO, ASA, omeprazole, Doxazosin, b-bloc

25.1

Summary data all cases

Median (min-max)

34 (20–41)

7 (5–30)

_

sCr

1.05 (0.4–3.2)

GFR-EPI

66.0 (18.0–184.1)

2 (1–4)

0.8 (0.1–6.3)

Pt

6.5 (5.1–8.4)

Alb

3.75 (2.3–4.68)

17/36

47.2 %

_

23.4 (17.9–34.0)

Summary data

Singletons

Median (min-max)

33

(20–41)

7 (5–30)

_

sCr

1.20 (0.4–3.2)

GFR-EPI

60.0 (18.0–136.2)

3 (1–4)

0.9 (0.1–6.3)

Pt

6.5 (5.6–8.4)

Alb

3.8 (2.6–4.68)

16/31

51.6 %

_

23.4 (18.2–34.0)

Data at referral: data observed at the first follow-up in our unit

HT hypertension, SLE systemic lupus erythematosus, IgA GN IgA nephropathy, FSGS focal segmental glomerlosclerosis, Diab Neph diabetic nephropathy, BMI body mass index, PtU 24 hour proteinuria, sCr serum creatinine, GFR glomerular filtration rate, SLE systemic lupus erythematosus. CyA cyclosporine A, ASA acetyl salicylic acid, Pred. prednisone, TAC tacrolimus, EPO erythropoietin, B-Bloc beta blocker, a-MD alpha methyldopa, ICSI intracytoplasmatic sperm injection

Table 2 reports the baseline data in the control group of 47 pregnancies homogeneously selected according in Torino and Cagliari; there were 42 singleton deliveries and 5 spontaneous miscarriages.
Table 2

Baseline data: “controls”: 47 pregnant patients on unrestricted diet in pregnancy (22 singleton deliveries in Cagliari, 20 in Torino)

Case

Age (yrs)

Pre-conceptional; Referral-week

Kidney disease

sCr mg/dL (EPI-GFR mL/min)

CKD stage

PtU (g/24 h)

Pt/Alb (g/dL)

HT

Therapy at referral

BMI

1

33

11w

IgA GN

0.9 (84.3)

2

1.1

6.0/2.9

No

Pred

20.2

2

34

pre; 7w

SLE

0.7 (113.4)

1

1.3

5.8/3.5

No

Steroids, AZA

19.6

3

34

pre; 6w

SLE

0.7 (113.4)

1

1.3

6.3/2.9

Yes

a-MD, Pred., CyA

20.8

4

38

pre; 22w

Unknown

0.8 (93.8)

1

1.7

Na

Yes

ASA, Nifedipine, a-MD

26

5

29

pre; 5w

IgA GN

0.9 (86.7)

2

2.1

6.3/3.5

Yes

a-MD

22.1

6

26

pre; 8w

Diab neph

0.4 (144.2)

1

2.6

5.6/3.3

No

ASA, Insulin

23.4

7

35

pre; 7w

SLE, LLAC

0.5 (129.3)

1

3.9

5.2 /2.9

No

Pred

20.2

8

19

pre; 13w

SLE

0.6 (135.6)

1

4

5.9/3

No

none

18.8

9

36

pre; 13w

FSGS

0.9 (82.5)

2

4.2

5.7/3.1

Yes

ASA, a-MD

20.3

10

41

pre; 6w

SLE

1 (71.9)

2

5.4

5.5/3.6

Yes

a-MD

18.3

11

35

pre; 20w

Diab neph

1.2 (58.7)

3

0.1

Na

Yes

a-MD, Insulin

25.6

12

39

pre; 7w

SLE

1.4 (47.4)

3

0.3

6.5/3.7

Yes

Pred., AZA

23

13

32

pre; 9w

SLE

1.4 (49.8)

3

0.8

6.7/4.5

Yes

Pred

21.6

14

35

pre; 8w

IgA GN

1.4 (50)

3

1.7

6.8/3.3

No

none

24.8

15

38

pre; 7w

Unknown

1.6 (40.6)

3

1.4

6.2/4.3

No

none

23.9

16

31

6w

IgA GN

1.6 (42.6)

3

++

7/3.3

No

none

32.5

17

36

pre; 6w

GN

1.8 (35.7)

3

0.4

7.3/ 4

No

none

22.5

18

23

pre; 13w

Unknown

1.9 (36.6)

3

2.8

6.1/ 3

No

none

30.1

19

30

na

IgA GN

1.4 (50)

3

6.2

na

Yes

a-MD

21.6

20

34

pre; 12w

SLE, LLAC

2.2 (28.4)

4

1.2

5.7/3.2

Yes

a-MD, ASA, EPO

21.4

21

28

7w

Unknown

1.6 (43.9)

3

1.6

7.4/ 4.3

No

none

23.7

22

33

pre; 12w

GN

0.5 (127.6)

1

1.1

7/4

No

none

21.8

Summary data

Cagliari

34 (19–41)

8 (5–22)

 

sCr

1.1 (0.4–2.2)

GFR-EPI

65.3 (28.4–144.2)

 

1.6 (0.1–6.2)

Pt

6.2 (5.2–7.4)

Alb

3.3 (2.9–4.5)

10

45.5 %

 

21.95 (18.3–32.5)

1

39

Pre; 8 w

Interstitial

1.6 (40)

3

1.3

7.3 /3.7

Yes

Felodipine, Doxazosin, Levotiroxina, ASA

26.7

2

27

14 w

Reflux

1.5 (47)

3

0.3

6.5/3.4

No

None

18.0

3

34

20 w

Chronic PN

1.5 (45)

3

2.0

Na

No

None

23.3

4

23

13 w

IgA GN

1.3 (56)

3

0.5

6.4/3.1

Yes

a-MD, ASA

22.7

5

32

Pre; 5 w

IgA GN

1.2 (58)

3

0.3

6.1/3.4

No

Steroids, Allopurinole

19.1

6

35

Pre; 8 w

IgA GN

1.3 (54)

3

0.5

6.6/2.7

Yes

a-MP, Niphedipine

24.4

7

22

27 w

Reflux

2.9 (22)

4

0.5

7.3/3.4

No

Niphedipine

22.2

8

39

Pre; 14 w

Chronic PN

1.4 (47)

3

0.2

8.1/4.0

Yes

B-bloc, ASA

18.4

9

31

20 w

Reflux

1.3 (54)

3

0.6

7.2/3.7

Yes

B-bloc, Doxazosine, Niphedipine, Isosorbide

19.5

10

25

33 w

Reflux

1.3 (57)

3

0.8

6.0/3.1

Yes

a-MP

19.3

11

35

7; w

Interstitial

1.3 (52)

3

0.6

6.0/3.2

Yes

None

25.6

12

33

Pre; 12w

Chronic PN

1.2 (60)

3

0.1

6.4/3.2

No

Clonidine, a-MP, ASA

19.7

13

30

6 w

Kidney graft

1.2 (59)

3

0.2

7.6/3.2

No

TAC, Pred, Pantoprazole, Allopurinolo

20.3

14

32

29 w

HIV neph.

1.43 (56)

3

0.4

7.0/3.1

No

Antiretroviral therapy Omeprazole

20.0

15

36

6 w

Kidney graft

1.1 (56)

3

0.1

6.9/4.7

No

Pred, CyA, Omeprazole, ASA

24.7

16

38

Pre; 8 w

single kidney

0.8 (56)

3

0.1

6.8/4.4

No

Calcium carbonate

15.6

17

27

5 w

SLE

0.6 (193.6)

1

1.45

7.09/4.37

No

ASA, Steroids

30.4

18

37

20 w

FSGS

0.7 (81.6)

2

2.33

6.56/3.62

No

none

23.6

19

26

12 w

IR e proteinuria

1.1 (101.2)

1

2

6.45/3.49

No

ASA

32.4

20

36

16 w

PNC

0.6 (122)

1

1.03

7.55/4.10

No

Thyroxine

20.2

21 (miscarriage)

38

7 w

Chronic PN, single kidney

1.9 (31)

3

0.1

7.3/5.0

No

None

24.9)

22 (miscarriage)

37

Pre; 8 w

Single kidney

0.8 (58)

3

0.1

7.6/4.7

No

None

15.6

23 (miscarriage)

36

5 w

Kidney graft

1.3 (53)

3

0.4

Na

No

CyA, AZA

25.5

24 (miscarriage)

37

Pre; 5 w

single kidney

0.9 (55)

3

0.1

na

No

Calcium carbonate,

16.2

25 (miscarriage)

30

9 w

Diab. Neph

1.4 (50)

3

0.2

6.9/4.1

No

Insuline

22.7

Summary data Torino

34

(22–39)

9 (5–33)

_

sCr

1.3 (0.6–2.9)

GFR-EPI

56.0 (22.0–193.6)

3 (1–4)

0.4

(0.1–2.33)

Pt

6.9 (6.0–8.1)

Alb

3.55 (2.7–5.0)

7

28.0 %

_

22.2 (15.6–32.4)

Summary data all controls:

42 singleton

33.5 (19–41)

9 (5–33)

_

sCr

1.25 (0.4–2.9)

GFR-EPI

56.0 (22.0–193.6)

3 (1–4)

1.1

(0.1–6.2)

Pt

6.5 (5.2–8.1)

Alb

3.4 (2.7–4.7)

17

40.5 %

_

21.95 (15.6–32.5)

P cases vs controls (singletons)

0.443

0.154

_

sCr

0.716

GFR-EPI

0.680

0.139

Chi 2

0.585

Pt

0.952

Alb

0.073

0.479

(Chi2)

_

0.237

Data at referral: data observed at the first follow-up in our unit

HT hypertension, SLE systemic lupus erythematosus, IgA GN IgA nephropathy, FSGS focal segmental glomerlosclerosis, Diab Neph diabetic nephropathy, BMI body mass index, PtU 24 hour proteinuria, sCr serum creatinine, GFR glomerular filtration rate, SLE systemic lupus (erithematosus)elim erythematosus. CyA cyclosporine A, ASA acetyl salicylic acid, Pred. prednisone, TAC tacrolimus, EPO erythropoietin, B-Bloc beta blocker, a-MD alpha methyldopa

The two groups are homogeneous with regard to the main clinical parameters: age (singletons only: on diet: 33 vs controls 33.5 years); and referral week (7 vs 9 weeks). CKD stage was non significantly lower in on diet patients (CKD 3-5: 48.4 % vs 64.3 %, p: 0.26), conversely, prevalence of hypertension was non significantly higher (51.6 % vs 40.5 %, p: 0.48). Nephrotic range proteinuria (16.1 % vs 12.2 %, p 0.74) was also non significantly higher in on diet patients. The combination of hypertension and proteinuria was present in 14/36 (38.9 %) on-diet patients and in 14/47 (29.8 %) controls (p = 0.35). There were more diabetic nephropathies in on-diet patients (on diet: 31 % vs controls: 5.3 %; p: 0.007) while lupus nephropathies were non-significantly higher in controls (on diet: 10.3 % vs controls 23.7 %; p: 0.28 (Fisher)), presumably as a reflection of the referral pattern of the individual Nephrology Units.

Pregnancy outcomes: kidney function and proteinuria

All of the patients on the diet followed it throughout pregnancy; no diet- or supplement- related side effects were reported and abdominal discomfort, when present, was not considered related to the diet itself. According to dietary recall, compliance was good; however, especially in the second period, in which the diet was more detailed and no more merely qualitative, some patients complained that it was very intrusive in their daily life.

An increase in serum creatinine leading to a shift towards a higher CKD stage was observed in 19.4 % on-diet and 9.5 % controls (p: 0.2 (Fisher)).

Proteinuria increased significantly in both patients and controls (new onset or doubling of proteinuria: 54.8 % of on-diet subjects and 50 % of controls; p: 0.5 (Fisher)). However, serum albumin and total proteins only moderately, and non significantly decreased at the end of pregnancy (diet group: total proteins: 6.5 g/dL at start vs 5.7 g/dL at delivery, albumin 3.75 g/dL at start vs 2.9 g/dL at delivery; control group: total proteins: 6.5 vs 6.1 g/dL, albumin 3.4 vs 3.24 g/dL) (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3

Maternal data at delivery: “on-diet”: 31 singleton deliveries and 3 twin deliveries

Case

sCr mg/dL (EPI-GFR mL/min)

Stage CKD

PtU g/24 h

Pt/Alb (g/dL)

Weight gain

Hospitalization

sCr mg/dL

(EPI-GFR mL/min) 3 months

PtU g/die

Serum Alb g/dl

3 months

1

1.8 (36)

3

6.2

4.8/1.9

9 (13.4 %)

95

2.0 (45)

3/2.5

2

1.8 (36)

3

5.6

5.7/2.8

11 (20 %)

73

1.9 (40)

4/3

3

3.7 (16)

4

2.6

6.3/3.6

9 (16 %)

55

4.5

0.3/3.6

4

2 (31)

3

1.9

5.6/2.9

9 (18 %)

47

2.1 (21)

1.5/3.1

5

0.7 (115)

1

3.4

4.8/2.9

14 (21.5 %)

123

-

-

6

2.9 (20)

4

2.0

6.2/2.9

10 (21.7 %)

80

2.8 (25)

1.5/3.5

7

5 (11)

5

17.3

4.2/1.8

16 (25 %)

93

4.3 (19)

5/3.1

8

0.6 (116)

1

2.1

5.0/2.4

10 (20 %)

30

0.8 (120)

4/3.2

9

1.3 (54)

3

3.6

5.3/2.8

8 (12 %)

84

1.2 (64)

1.3/-

10

0.5 (140)

1

2.9

5.4/2.7

11 (17 %)

63

0.7 (125.1)

6.2/2.8

11

1.8 (35)

3

5.4

5.4/2.8

5 (7 %)

99

1.7 (52.9)

6.8/3.8

12

0.8 (99)

1

5.7

5.5/2.7

10 (17.9 %)

9

1.2 (60.6)

5.7/3.2

13

1.5 (45)

3

5.5

5.0/2.6

4 (7.8 %)

28

2.9 (23.3)

3.4/4

14

1 (73)

2

4.7

4.5/2.2

12 (21 %)

29

0.9 (82.5)

4.4/2.2

15

1.5 (44)

3

9.4

5.5/2.6

8 (14 %)

24

1.9 (33.7)

1.3/5.7

16

1 (72)

2

4.4

6.4/2.8

14 (30.4 %%)

24

0.9 (80.2)

1.4/3.5

17

1.1 (65)

2

2.2

6.0/2.9

11 (20.4 %)

9

na

na

18

3.6 (15)

4

3.4

5.8/3.2

12 (17.9 %)

26

3.1 (18.5)

1.3/3.2

19

0.6 (115)

1

1.4

5.2/2.6

10 (14.1 %)

16

0.7 (110.3)

2.5/2.7

20

1.8 (37)

3

0.8

6.7/3.3

7 (9.2 %)

12

1.7 (39.1)

1/3.9

21

1.2 (60)

2

1.7

5.9/3.1

15 (23.8 %)

8

1.8 (37.2)

0.3/4.1

22

0.7 (105)

1

0.9

5.7/2.9

10 (20.4 %)

3

0.8 (98.7)

0.8/4.5

23

1 (69)

2

0.3

6.8/3.6

12 (22.6 %)

4

1.3 (53.7)

0.1/3.7

24

1.2 (63.2)

2

0.6

6.7/3.6

6 (10 %)

13

1.1 (69.5)

0.1/4

25

0.8 (90.5)

1

1.8

5.5/3.2

6 (7 %)

7

0.9 (76.6)

0.7/4.3

26

1 (75.6)

2

0.8

6.6/3.1

22 (31 %)

5

1.0 (74.7)

0.8/3.3

27

0.9 (86)

2

0.9

5.9/3.1

1 (1 %)

16

na

na

28

0.5 (131.1)

1

0.4

6.0/2.7

−2 (−2.5 %)

5

0.6 (118.9)

0.5/4.7

29

1 (89.9)

2

6.2

5.5/2.9

6 (7.9 %)

5

1.0

na

30

2 (31.6)

3

0.1

6.4/3.2

9 (15 %)

22

na

na

31

2.33 (27)

4

0.41

6.4/3.3

15 (22 %)

24

na

na

32 (twin)

0.7 (117)

1

11.8

4.1/1.8

21 (42 %)

76

0.6 (121.8)

1.5/3.7

33 (twin)

0.9 (81.4)

2

na

6.1/3.3

3 (3.3 %)

8

na

na

34 (twin)

0.6 (120)

1

0.9

5.6/3.0

24 (27.3 %)

14

na

na

Summary data (singletons)

sCr

1.2 (0.5–5.0)

GFR-EPI

63.2 (11.0–140.0)

3 (1–4)

2.2 (0.1–17.3)

Pt

5.7 (4.2–6.8)

Alb

2.9 (1.8–3.6)

10.0 (−2–22)

24 (3–123)

sCr

1.25 (0.6–4.5)

GFR-EPI

57.15 (18.5–125.1)

PtU

1.4 (0.1–6.8)

Serum Alb

3.5 (2.2–5.7)

Legend: Data at delivery: data observed at the last control before delivery (usually at hospitalization

PtU 24 hour proteinuria, sCr serum creatinine, GFR glomerular filtration rate, Alb serum albumin, na non available

Table 4

Maternal data at delivery: “controls”: 42 singleton deliveries

Case

sCr mg/dL (EPI-GFR mL/min)

Stage CKD

PtU g/24 h

Pt/Alb (g/dL)

Weight gain (Kg)

sCr mg/dL

(EPI-GFR mL/min) 3 months

PtU g/die

Serum Alb g/dl

3 months

1

0.9 (85)

2

1.5

5.3/2.9

10

0.9 (85)

1.7/3.7

2

0.8 (96)

1

7.2

6.9/3.3

10

0.8 (96)

0.8/4

3

0.7 (113)

1

8.8

6.3/3.1

10

0.8 (96)

0.4/3.8

4

0.8 (94)

1

1.5

na

na

na

na

5

0.9 (86)

2

1.1

5.7/2.9

15

1 (76)

1.3/ 3.7

6

0.5 (136)

1

0.8

5.9/2.9

14

0.5 (129)

0.4/4.3

7

0.5 (124)

1

4.0

5.4/2.5

14

0.5 (125)

1.4/3.2

8

0.5 (141)

1

3.7

5.7/ 3.0

10

0.6 (130)

3.1/4.3

9

1.0 (72)

2

6.2

5.1/2.8

18

1.1 (64)

3.5/ 3.7

10

1.3 (51)

3

7.9

4.7/2

12

1.3 (51)

1.3/ 3.1

11

2.3 (27)

4

8.3

na

na

na

na

12

1.4 (47)

3

2.5

6/3.3

14

1.5 (43)

2.1/na

13

1.4 (50)

3

6.3

5.2/3.1

13

1.4 (49)

1/4.1

14

1.4 (48)

3

3.6

6.4/3.0

18

1.5 (44)

3.2/na

15

1.8 (35)

3

4.4

5.6/2.8

11

1.9 (33)

5.7/3.3

16

1.6 (42)

3

1.8

6.1/3.0

8

1.3 (55)

2.4/3.9

17

1.7 (38)

3

5.6

5.9/2.9

9

1.8 (35)

5.7/3.6

18

1.7 (42)

3

5.6

6.2/3.3

7

1.9 (36)

8/4

19

1.4 (50)

3

6.2

5.3/3.3

8

0.9 (131)

1.6/4.1

20

2.0 (32)

3

5.1

5.7/3.2

4

1.8 (37)

5.4/3

21

2.3 (27.8)

4

7.1

6.8/3.1

10

2.4 (26)

2.7/4.2

22

0.5 (127)

1

0.5

7.5/3.8

17

0.7 (114)

0.8/4.6

Summary data (Cagliari)

sCr

1.35 (0.5–2.3)

GFR-EPI

50.5 (27.0–141.0)

3 (1–4)

4.75 (0.5–8.8)

Pt

5.8 (4.7–7.5)

Alb

3.0 (2.0–3.8)

10.5 (4–18)

sCr

1.20 (0.5–2.4)

GFR-EPI

59.5 (26.0–131.0)

PtU

1.90 (0.4–8.0)

Serum Alb

3.85 (3.0–4.6)

1

0.83 (121)

1

1.08

6.1/3.8

8

1.2 (57)

1.0/3.5

2

0.69 (80.5)

2

1.61

6.1/2.9

12

1.4 (66)

0.9/3.7

3

1.06 (86)

2

2.83

6.343.3

10

1.7 (39)

1.2/ns

4

0.59 (112)

1

0.1

7.01/3.58

8

1.9 (42)

2.5/3.2

5

0.83 (121)

1

1.08

6.08/3.80

8

1.2 (52)

0.8/3.7

6

0.69 (80.5)

2

1.61

6.11/2.95

10

Na

na

7

1.06 (86)

2

2.83

6.34/3.28

2

5.2 (11)

na

8

0.59 (112)

1

0.1

7.01/3.58

6

2.1 (29)

0.5/4.0

9

0.83 (121)

1

1.08

6.08/3.80

11

2.2 (29)

1.2/3.7

10

0.69 (80.5)

2

1.61

6.11/2.95

19

1.3 (57)

0.7/4.1

11

1.06 (86)

2

2.83

6.34/3.28

11

1.1 (62)

0.1/4.1

12

0.59 (112)

1

0.1

7.01/3.58

15

1.5 (45)

0.2/3.7

13

0.83 (121)

1

1.08

6.08/3.8

14

0.9 (85)

0.3/3.8

14

0.69 (80.5)

2

1.61

6.11/2.95

7

1.2 (72)

na

15

1.06 (86)

2

2.83

6.34/3.28

3

na

na

16

0.59 (112)

1

0.1

7.01/3.58

13

0.9 (55a)

0.1/4.2

17

0.83 (121)

1

1.08

6.08/3.80

14

na

na

18

0.69 (80.5)

2

1.61

6.11/2.95

3

na

na

19

1.06 (86)

2

2.83

6.34/3.28

2

na

na

20

0.59 (112)

1

0.1

7.01/3.58

19

na

na

Summary data

Torino

sCr

0.76 (0.59–1,06)

GFR-EPI

99.0 (80.5–121.0)

 

1.34 (0.1–2.83)

Pt

6.2 (6.08–7.01)

Alb

3.44 (2.9–3.8)

10.0 (2–19)

sCr

1.35 (0.9–5.2)

GFR-EPI

53.5 (11.0–85.0)

PtU

0.75 (0.1–2.5)

Serum Alb

3.7 (3.2–4.2)

Summary data, all

sCr

0.83 (0.5–2.3)

GFR-EPI

86.0 (27.0–141.0)

 

2.15 (0.1–8.8)

Pt

6.1 (4.7–7.5)

Alb

3.24 (2.0–3.8)

10.0 (2–19)

sCr

1.3 (0.5–5.2)

GFR-EPI

55.0 (11.0–131.0)

PtU

1.25 (0.1–8.0)

Serum Alb

3.8 (3.0–4.6)

P controls vs on diet

sCr

0.018

GFR-EPI

0.018

0.390

(Chi2)

0.876

0.010

0.364

sCr

0.565

GFR-EPI

0.813

PtU

0.499

Serum Alb

0.074

Legend: Data at delivery: data observed at the last control before delivery (usually at hospitalization

PtU 24 hour proteinuria, sCr serum creatinine, GFR glomerular filtration rate, Alb serum albumin, na non available

acreatinine clearance (small size)

At 3 months after delivery serum creatinine increased and GFR decreased in both groups, in keeping with the reversal of pregnancy-related hyperfiltration. The decrease in proteinuria is probably due both to the reversal of the hyperflitraton phase, but other less known pregnancy-related permeability changes mechanisms may also play a role (Tables 3 and 4), Figs. 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Performance of serum creatinine in on diet patients and controls

Figure 2
Fig. 2

Performance of GFR in on diet patients and controls

Figure 3
Fig. 3

Performance of proteinuria in on diet patients and controls

Pregnancy outcomes: prevalence of small for gestational age and preterm babies

Tables 5 and 6 report the main data regarding birth-weight and timing of delivery in on-diet patients and in controls. No significant differences were observed for the overall prevalence of preterm delivery (<37 completed gestational weeks), which was over 70 % in both groups (on-diet singletons 77.4 %; controls 71.4 %; p: 0.76), or in the prevalence of children with birth-weight at or below 2.5 Kg (21/31: 66.7 % vs 25/42: 59.5 %, p: 0.32).
Table 5

Main Maternal-foetal outcomes and intrauterine growth: “on-diet”: 31 singleton deliveries and 3 twin deliveries

Case

Gestational age

Weeks (days)

Type of delivery

Sex of the baby

Weight (g)

Centile (Parazzini)

Centile (INeS)

Apgar (1–5 min)

NICU

1

31 + 0 (217)

Vaginal

M

1595

50–90

55

7–8

Yes

2

33 + 3 (234)

CS

F

1980

50–90

63

9–9

Yes

3

35 + 2 (247)

CS

F

1685

<5

5

8–9

Yes

4

31 + 0 (217)

CS

M

1970

50–90

92

8–8

Yes

5

32 + 6 (230)

CS

M

2080

50–90

75

9–9

No

6

34 + 1 (239)

CS

F

1410

<5

3

8–8

Yes

7

28 + 1 (197)

CS

F

935

10–50

42

7–8

Yes

8

37 + 1 (260)

Vaginal

M

2620

10–50

16

9–9

No

9

34 + 5 (243)

CS

M

2180

10-50

37

8–9

No

10

34 + 3 (241)

CS

F

1710

10–50

13

9–9

Yes

11

33 + 0 (231)

CS

F

2115

50–90

76

7–8

Yes

12

36 + 3 (255)

CS

F

2250

10–50

17

9–9

No

13

36 + 6 (258)

CS

F

2340

10–50

10

9–9

No

14

32 + 2 (226)

CS

F

1920

50–90

79

6–8

Yes

15

32 + 0 (224)

CS

F

1550

10–50

31

8–8

Yes

16

34 + 1 (239)

Vaginal

F

2350

50–90

93

7–8

Yes

17

37 + 4 (263)

Vaginal

F

2820

10–50

29

9–9

No

18

31 + 6 (223)

CS

M

1365

10–50

19

8–8

Yes

19

38 + 3 (269)

Vaginal

F

3180

50–90

62

9–9

No

20

35 + 5 (250)

CS

M

1790

<5

2

9–9

Yes

21

36 + 1 (253)

Vaginal

F

2140

5–10

11

9–9

No

22

38 + 6 (272)

Vaginal

F

2760

10–50

12

9–9

No

23

38 + 5 (271)

Vaginal

F

3000

10–50

29

9–9

No

24

36 + 6 (258)

Vaginal

F

2600

10–50

29

8–8

No

25

36 + 5 (257)

Vaginal

F

2740

10–50

44

9–9

No

26

37 + 2 (261)

Vaginal

M

2580

10–50

18

8–9

No

27

31 + 6 (223)

CS

F

1670

10–50

56

8–8

Yes

28

37 + 1 (260)

Vaginal

M

3070

10–50

55

9–9

No

29

36 + 6 (258)

Vaginal

F

2830

10–50

50

9–9

No

30

36 + 1 (253)

Vaginal

F

2250

10–50

22

9–9

No

31

35 + 6 (251)

CS

F

2020

10–50

23

9/9

No

32 (twin)

31 + 4 (221)

CS

aM

1270

5–10

16

4–7

Yes

F

1275

10–50

22

7–8

Yes

33 (twin)

36 + 4 (256)

CS

F

2350

10–50

16

9–9

No

M

2400

10–50

12

8–9

No

34 (twin)

35 + 6 (251)

CS

M

2920

50–90

72

8/9

No

M

3040

50–90

81

8/9

No

Summary data: singletons

Below 37w: 24 (77.4 %)

Below 34w: 10 (32.3 %)

Below 28: 0

Median 35 (28–38)

CS

17 (54.8 %)

M

9 (29.0 %)

Below 1500 g: 3 (9.7 %)

Below 2500 g: 21 (67.7 %)

Median 2140

(935–3180)

Below 5th: 3/31 (9.7 %)

Below 5th: 2/31

(6.5 %)

5 min:

9 (6–9)

10 min

9 (8–9)

Yes

14 (45.2 %)

Vaginal

14 (45.2 %)

F

22 (71.0 %)

Below 10th

4/31 (12.9 %)

Below 10th 3/31 (9.7 %)

median

29 (2–93)

No

17 (54.8 %)

Legend: aNeonatal death, CS caesarean section, NICU neonatal Intensive Care Unit, M male, F female, Parazzini Parazzini growth charts, INeS Italian Neonatal Study growth charts

Table 6

Main Maternal-foetal outcomes, and intrauterine growth: “controls”: 42 singleton deliveries

Case

Gestational age

Type of delivery

Sex of the baby

Weight (g)

Centile (Parazzini)

Centile (INeS)

Apgar (1–5 min)

NICU

1

32 + 5

CS

M

1470

10–50

15

6–7

Yes

2

31 + 6

CS

F

1500

10–50

41

7–9

Yes

3

27 + 3

CS

Fa

700

/

16

7–7

Yes

4

29 + 3

CS

M

610

<5

1

4–8

Yes

5

40 + 3

CS

F

2750

10–50

7

8–10

No

6

36 + 2

CS

M

3230

50–90

86

5–7

Yes

7

37 + 1

CS

M

2340

<5

8

9–10

No

8

33 + 0

CS

F

1950

10–50

59

8–9

Yes

9

37 + 0

CS

M

2300

<5

5

9–10

No

10

33 + 5

CS

M

1900

10–50

34

9–9

Yes

11

32 + 1

CS

M

2180

50–90

93

na

Yes

12

37 + 4

CS

M

2870

10–50

27

10–10

No

13

36 + 4

CS

F

2630

10–50

37

9–10

No

14

36 + 3

CS

M

2650

10–50

32

8–9

Yes

15

35 + 4

CS

F

2400

10–50

48

10–10

No

16

37 + 1

CS

M

2970

10–50

45

8–10

No

17

32 + 0

CS

M

1950

50–90

81

8–8

Yes

18

34 + 6

CS

M

2330

10–50

49

8–10

No

19

28 + 4

CS

F

820

10–50

17

7–9

Yes

20

25 + 2

CS

Ma

500

/

7

3–5

Yes

21

35 + 4

vaginal

F

2450

10–50

58

8–9

No

22

36 + 0

vaginal

F

2600

5–10

13

9–10

No

Summary data: Cagliari

Below 37w: 17 (77.3 %)

Below 34w: 10 (45.5 %)

Below 28w: 2 (9.1 %)

median

34.5 (25–40)

CS

20 (90.9 %)

M

13 (59.1 %)

Below 1500 g:

5 (22.7 %)

Below 2500 g:

15 (68.2 %)

Below 5th or below 28 w: 5/22 (22.7 %)

Below 5th: 1/22 (4.5 %)

5 min:

8 (3–10)

10 min

9 (5–10)

Yes

12 (54.4 %)

Vaginal

2 (9.1 %)

F

9 (40.9 %)

Below 10th or below 28 w: 6/22

(27.3 %)

Below 10th: 5/22

(22.7 %)

median

33 (1–93)

No

10 (45.5 %)

1

37 + 0

CS

F

3330

50–90

92

9–9

No

2

31 + 0

CS

M

1100

5–10

10

9–9

Yes

3

33 + 0

CS

M

1425

5–10

9

7–9

Yes

4

36 + 5

Vaginal

F

2410

10–50

24

9–9

No

5

36 + 2

Vaginal

F

2160

5–10

14

9–9

No

6

36 + 5

Vaginal

F

2600

10–50

40

9–9

No

7

28 + 2

CS

M

750

5–10

9

5–8

Yes

8

36 + 2

CS

M

2500

10–50

30

9–9

No

9

32 + 5

CS

M

1300

5–10

5

9–9

Yes

10

38 + 0

Vaginal

M

2280

<5

2

8–8

No

11

34 + 2

Vaginal

F

2160

10–50

39

8–9

No

12

38 + 3

Vaginal

F

3170

50–90

61

9–9

No

13

37 + 6

Vaginal

F

3050

50–90

59

8–8

No

14

38 + 0

CS

M

2565

5–10

6

9–9

No

15

32 + 2

CS

M

1440

10–50

19

7–9

Yes

16

38 + 4

Vaginal

M

2850

10–50

18

7–8

No

17

35 + 6

Vaginal

F

2900

50–90

85

9–9

No

18

35 + 4

CS

M

1620

<5

1

9–9

Yes

19

36 + 6

CS

F

2510

10–50

29

9–9

No

20

37 + 6

CS

M

3180

50–90

59

9–9

No

Summary data: Torino

Below 37 w: 13 (65.0 %)

Below 34 w: 5 (25.0 %)

Below 28 w: 0 median

36 (28–38)

CS

11 (55.0 %)

M

11 (55.0 %)

Below 1500 g: 5 (25.0 %)

Below 2500 g: 10 (50.0 %)

median

2455

(750–3330)

Below 5th: 2/20

(10.0 %)

Below 5th: 2/20 (10.0 %)

5 min: 8 (5–9)

10 min: 9 (8–9)

Yes

6 (30.0 %)

Vaginal

9 (45.0 %)

F

9 (45.0 %)

Below 10th 8/20

(40.0 %)

Below 10th: 6/20 (30.0 %)

median

21.5 (1–92)

No

14 (70.0 %)

Summary data: all

Below 37 w: 30 (71.4 %)

Below 34 w: 15 (35.7 %)

Below 28 w: 2 (4.8 %)

median

35.5 (25–40)

CS

31 (73.8 %)

M

24 (57.1 %)

Below 1500 g: 10 (23.8 %)

Below 2500 g: 25 (59.5 %)

median

2335

(500–3330)

Below 5th:

7/42 (16.7 %)

Below 10th: 14/42 (33.3 %)

Below 5th: 3/42 (7.1 %)

Below 10th: 11/42 (26.2 %)

median

28.0 (1–93)

5 min: 8 (5–9)

10 min: 9 (8–9)

Yes

18/42

(42.9 %)

P

diet vs controls

Median: 0.839

(Mann–Whitney) Below 37: 0.759

(Chi2 Yates)

Below 34: 0.954 (Chi2 Yates)

Below 28: 0.505 (Fisher)

0.150

Chi2

(Yates)

0.032

Chi2

(Yates)

0.742

Mann–Whitney

Below 1500 g: 0.104

(Fisher)

Below 2500 g: 0.319 (Fisher)

Below 5th:

0.308 (Fisher)

Below 10th:

0.040 (Fisher)

Below 5th: 0.643 (Fisher)

Below 10th:

0.068 (Fisher)

5 min: 0.501

10 min: 0.076

(Mann–Whitney)

1.000

Chi2

(Yates)

Legend: aNeonatal death, CS caesarean section, NICU neonatal Intensive Care Unit, M male, F female, Parazzini Parazzini growth charts, INeS Italian Neonatal Study growth charts. Fisher: one tailed test

The Figs. 4 and 5, based upon the original Parazzini charts that were the most commonly used references in Italy throughout the study period, summarize the relationship between birth-weight and prematurity in the two settings. Early preterm delivery (on diet: 32.3 % vs controls: 35.7 %) and extremely low birth-weight (on diet: 9.7 % vs controls: 23.8 %) were more common in control groups, and the only two extremely preterm deliveries were observed in the control group (p: 0.505).
Figure 4
Fig. 4

Relationship between birth-weight and prematurity in on diet patients and controls: females

Figure 5
Fig. 5

Relationship between birth-weight and prematurity in on diet patients and controls: males

The birth-weighty centiles, assessed by the Parazzini chart, reference in most of the period of study, showed a lower prevalence of babies below the 10th centile or extremely preterm (below 28 weeks) in on diet patients versus in controls; the difference (one tailed Fisher exact test) reaches statistical significance (12.9 % vs 33.3 % p: 0.04). If centiles are calculated with INeS charts, the figures are similar (below 10th centile: 9.7 % on diet vs 26.2 % controls, but the difference doesn’t reach statistical significance (p: 0.068)).

Conversely, gestational age and birth weight did not differ in the two cohorts (Tables 5 and 6 and Figs. 1 and 2). One twin child diet of on-diet mother died (cerebral haemorrhage after heart surgery for cardiac malformation); none of the singletons died in the on-diet series, while two perinatal deaths occurred in the control group (p = 0.505).

Discussion

An often-cited quote by Feuerbach states: “a man is what he eats”; indeed there are good reasons to reflect on Feuerbach’s clever and polemic sentence in the era of epigenetics and of rediscovery of the importance of what we eat to prevent diseases and possibly to cure them.

Low protein diets are a well-known tool for contrasting absolute or relative hyperfiltration in the case of nephrotic syndrome or diabetes, and in the remnant nephrons in CKD patients [1416, 3941]. Pregnancy is another well-acknowledged condition of physiological hyperfiltration, which may exert a negative effect on kidney function or increase proteinuria in CKD patients [4247].

Control of hyperfiltration and of proteinuria were the potential advantages we hoped to achieve by a low-protein diet in pregnancy, when this experience started, at a time when pregnancy in CKD was often discouraged and the common practice was to increase protein intake in pregnancy [48].

Almost unexpectedly, the finding of equivalent or better foetal growth in on-diet patients shifted our attention from the maternal kidneys to the maternal-foetal exchanges, suggesting a potential effect on the utero-placental axis [4]. While the low numbers, and the lack of a homogeneous control group limited the interest in our findings, this larger cohort with a well-matched larger control group may allow us to refine the previous results.

Similarly to our previous studies, in the present series there is a trend towards better preserved foetal growth, that reaches statistical significance for the combined outcome of extremely preterm delivery and small for gestational age baby (below the 10th centile) (Tables 5 and 6). Preterm delivery was over 70 % in cases and controls, witnessing the relevance of the renal impairment; such prevalence is in line with available studies on patients with advanced CKD [3, 5, 4951].

In our analysis the differences between cases and controls regard the “harder” and partially overlapping outcomes, which include early preterm delivery, small for gestational age (SGA) and extreme preterm babies, “very small” babies (birth-weight is at or below1,500 g). The lower incidence of SGA has to be contextualised with the similar incidence of early preterm delivery (32.3 % vs 35.7 % in controls), since SGA is a reason for anticipating delivery [52]. This reinforces our previous findings, of a better foetal growth in children of on-diet CKD mothers (Figs. 1 and 2, Tables 5 and 6).

Our study has several limitations, which are partly shared by other studies on pregnancy: first of all, it is not randomised. However, randomization of the diet is hardly feasible outside of pregnancy and may be ethically unsound in pregnancy.

Secondly, we deal with a small number of patients, even if ours is the only study to date dedicated to this issue in CKD pregnancies.

Further research, involving a greater number of subjects is needed to highlight the differences suggested by our studies and to analyse placental vascularization and development, thus possibly offering insights into the pathogenesis of adverse pregnancy-related outcomes in CKD mothers. Theoretically, a positive effect could be due to a decrease in “vaso-toxic” elements or to an increase in “vaso-protective” ones; both are present in the study diet. A growing amount of data suggests that red meat consumption is associated with an increase in cardiovascular risk, while diets that are rich in vegetables, legumes and grains (especially those with a low glycaemic index) may be protective against endothelial dysfunction [5363].

The specific advantage of vegetable proteins and of supplementation with ketoacids may have played an important role, as it has been suggested in experimental models, which show a protective endothelial effect of ketoacids in rats with kidney disease and a decrease in the risk of CKD in the offspring of rats with genetic kidney diseases that are fed a soya rich diet [64, 65].

In the absence of a randomised controlled trial that could present ethical limitations in pregnancy, we hope that our data may stimulate new research on this important issue.

Conclusion

Vegan-vegetarian diets with moderate protein restriction, supplemented with amino and keto-acids, are safe in pregnancy and may be followed without appreciable side effects. A favourable trend towards improving foetal outcomes was observed for growth and timing of delivery, and reached statistical significance for the combined outcome of small for gestational age babies and extremely preterm delivery, which are also the most robust predictors of future health.

While waiting for further studies to highlight the underlying mechanisms, we hope that this positive finding may raise awareness to the important issue of diet, CKD and pregnancy.

Abbreviations

CKD: 

Chronic kidney disease

IUGR: 

Intrauterine growth restriction

PE: 

Preeclampsia

SGA: 

Small for gestational age

TOCOS: 

Torino Cagliari Observational Study

Declarations

Funding

The study received a funding from the University of Torino; GB Piccoli has received a grant and is consultant from the Fresenius Kabi company.

Availability of data and materials

All the relevant data gathered in a dedicated database as is available in the tables; furter data is at disposal on demand.

Authors’ contributions

RA: drafted the study, followed the patients. FL: designed the diet, followed the patients. SP, FF, IC, LC, MR and MGA, retrieved the data of the patients; made the tables; followed the patients. VL: retrieved the data of the controls; followed the patients. MG, FM, EP made the bibliografic search; retrieved the control data; made the figures; pariticpated to the analysis of the data. EV and MB analysed the data; PA, AP, GC, TT drafted the study, overviewed the research; GBP: designed the diet, drafted the study, followed the patients. All Authors approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

All patients signed an informed consent to the anonymous use of their clincal data for research purposes.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This is an observational study on current clinical practice; The study was approved by the Ethics committee of the OIRM Sant’Anna (n° pratica 335; n° protocollo 11551/c28.2 del 4/3/2011). All patients signed a dedicate informed consent.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
SS Nephrology, SCDU Urology, AOU San Luigi, Orbassano, Italy
(2)
SS Epidemiology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
(3)
SSD Clinical Nutrition, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
(4)
SCD Nephrology, Brotzu Hospital, Cagliari, Italy
(5)
SCDU Nephrology, Department Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
(6)
SS Nephrology, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, Orbassano, Italy
(7)
Nèphrologie, CH du Mans, Le Mans, France

References

  1. Piccoli GB, Mezza E, Grassi G, Burdese M, Todros T. A 35 year old woman with diabetic nephropathy who wants a baby: case outcome. BMJ. 2004;329:900.2.Google Scholar
  2. Piccoli GB, Attini R, Vasario E, et al. Vegetarian supplemented low-protein diets. A safe option for pregnant CKD patients: report of 12 pregnancies in 11 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:196–205.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Piccoli GB, Fassio F, Attini R, et al. Pregnancy in CKD: whom should we follow and why? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27 Suppl 3:iii111–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Piccoli GB, Leone F, Attini R, et al. Association of low-protein supplemented diets with fetal growth in pregnant women with CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9:864–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Piccoli GB, Cabiddu G, Attini R, et al. Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:2011–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Schmidt JA, Rinaldi S, Ferrari P, et al. Metabolic profiles of male meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans from the EPIC-Oxford cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102:1518–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiu YF, Hsu CC, Chiu TH, Lee CY, Liu TT, Tsao CK, Chuang SC, Hsiung CA. Cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of metabolic profiles between vegetarian and non-vegetarian subjects: a matched cohort study. Br J Nutr. 2015;114:1313–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grosso G, Marventano S, Yang J, Micek A, Pajak A, Scalfi L, Galvano F, Kales SN. A comprehensive meta-analysis on evidence of mediterranean diet and cardiovascular disease: Are individual components equal? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;0. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  9. Rees K, Hartley L, Flowers N, et al. ‘Mediterranean’ dietary pattern for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8:CD009825. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009825.pub2.Google Scholar
  10. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. PREDIMED Study Investigators. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wang X, Lin X, Ouyang YY, et al. Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Public Health Nutr. 2015;6:1–13.Google Scholar
  12. Larsson SC, Orsini N. Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179:282–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ornish D. Holy Cow! What’s good for you is good for our planet: comment on “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality”. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:563–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitch WE, Remuzzi G. Diets for patients with chronic kidney disease, still worth prescribing. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:234–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brenner BM, Lawler EV, Mackenzie HS. The hyperfiltration theory: a paradigm shift in nephrology. Kidney Int. 1996;49:1774–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Neuringer JR, Brenner BM. Hemodynamic theory of progressive renal disease: a 10-year update in brief review. Am J Kidney Dis. 1993;22:98–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Barsotti G, Guiducci A, Ciardella F, Giovannetti S. Effects on renal function of a low-nitrogen diet supplemented with essential amino acids and ketoanalogues and of hemodialysis and free protein supply in patients with chronic renal failure. Nephron. 1981;27:113–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Barsotti G, Morelli E, Cupisti A, Meola M, Dani L, Giovannetti S. A low-nitrogen low-phosphorus Vegan diet for patients with chronic renal failure. Nephron. 1996;74:390–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Craig WJ, Mangels AR. American Dietetic Association. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(7):1266–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada. Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Koletzko B, Bauer CP, Bung P, et al. Nutrition in pregnancy - Practice recommendations of the Network “Healthy Start - Young Family Network”. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2012;137:1366–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Piccoli GB, Clari R, Vigotti FN, et al. Vegan-vegetarian diets in pregnancy: danger or panacea? A systematic narrative review. BJOG. 2015;122:623–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Leitzmann C. Vegetarian diets: what are the advantages? Forum Nutr. 2005;57:147–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Key TJ, Appleby PN, Rosell MS. Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. Proc Nutr Soc. 2006;65:35–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pawlak R, Parrott SJ, Raj S, Cullum-Dugan D, Lucus D. How prevalent is vitamin B (12) deficiency among vegetarians? Nutr Rev. 2013;71:110–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Woo KS, Kwok TC, Celermajer DS. Vegan diet, subnormal vitamin B-12 status and cardiovascular health. Nutrients. 2014;6:3259–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Radnitz C, Beezhold B, DiMatteo J. Investigation of lifestyle choices of individuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite. 2015;90:31–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tucker KL. Vegetarian diets and bone status. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100 Suppl 1:329S–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mangels AR. Bone nutrients for vegetarians. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100 Suppl 1:469S–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Savva SC, Kafatos A. Is red meat required for the prevention of iron deficiency among children and adolescents? Curr Pediatr Rev. 2014;10(3):177–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner-McGrievy G, Harris M. Key elements of plant-based diets associated with reduced risk of metabolic syndrome. Curr Diab Rep. 2014;14:524.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nguyen R, Wilcox A. Terms in reproductive and perinatal epidemiology: 2. Perinatal terms. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:1019–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Parazzini F, Cortinovis I, Bortolus R, Soliani A, Fedele L. Weight at birth of singleton live births between the 23rd and 27th week of gestation delivered vaginally or by cesarean section. Acta Paediatr. 1994;83:1206–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. www.inescharts.com, last Accessed 29 Nov 2015.
  35. Cabiddu G, Castellino S, Gernone G, et al. A best practice position statement on pregnancy in chronic kidney disease: the Italian Study Group on Kidney and Pregnancy. J Nephrol. 2016;29:277–303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Piccoli GB, Cabiddu G, Attini R, et al. Pregnancy in CKD: Questions and answers in a changing panorama. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;29:625–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Piccoli GB, Vigotti FN, Leone F, et al. Low-protein diets in CKD: how can we achieve them? A narrative, pragmatic review. Clin Kidney J. 2015;8:61–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Piccoli GB, Ferraresi M, Deagostini MC, et al. Vegetarian low-protein diets supplemented with keto analogues: a niche for the few or an option for many? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28:2295–305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Helal I, Fick-Brosnahan GM, Reed-Gitomer B, Schrier RW. Glomerular hyperfiltration: definitions, mechanisms and clinical implications. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2012;8:293–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Bosch JP, Saccaggi A, Lauer A, Ronco C, Belledonne M, Glabman S. Renal functional reserve in humans: effect of protein intake on glomerular filtration rate. Am J Med. 1983;75:943–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Brenner BM, Meyer TW, Hostetter TH. Dietary protein intake and the progressive nature of kidney disease. The role of hemodynamically mediated glomerular injury in the pathogenesis of progressive glomerular sclerosis in aging, renal ablation, and intrinsic renal disease. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:652–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindheimer MD, Davison JM, Katz AI. The kidney and hypertension in pregnancy: twenty exciting years. Semin Nephrol. 2001;21:173–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jeyabalan A, Conrad KP. Renal function during normal pregnancy and preeclampsia. Front Biosci. 2007;12:2425–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Heguilén RM, Liste AA, Bellusci AD, Lapidus AM, Bernasconi AR. Renal response to an acute protein challenge in pregnant women with borderline hypertension. Nephrology (Carlton). 2007;12:254–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Ronco C, Brendolan A, Bragantini L, et al. Renal functional reserve in pregnancy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1988;3:157–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Baylis C. Glomerular filtration rate in normal and abnormal pregnancies. Semin Nephrol. 1999;19:133–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Piccoli GB, Attini R, Vigotti FN, et al. Is renal hyperfiltration protective in chronic kidney disease-stage 1 pregnancies? A step forward unravelling the mystery of the effect of stage 1 chronic kidney disease on pregnancy outcomes. Nephrology (Carlton). 2015;20:201–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Blumfield ML, Collins CE. High-protein diets during pregnancy: healthful or harmful for offspring? Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100:993–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Imbasciati E, Gregorini G, Cabiddu G, et al. Pregnancy in CKD stages 3 to 5: fetal and maternal outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49:753–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang JJ, Ma XX, Hao L, Liu LJ, Lv JC, Zhang H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of pregnancy in CKD and CKD outcomes in pregnancy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10:1964–78.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Feng Z, Minard C, Raghavan R. Pregnancy outcomes in advanced kidney disease. Clin Nephrol. 2015;83:272–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Cabiddu G, Castellino S, Attini R, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after kidney graft in Italy: a long, evolving story (1978-2012). Abstract of the 52ERA-EDTA Congress, London 2015. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30 suppl 3:iii359.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Garneata L, Mircescu G. Effect of low-protein diet supplemented with keto acids on progression of chronic kidney disease. J Ren Nutr. 2013;23:210–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Brunori G, Viola BF, Parrinello G, et al. Efficacy and safety of a very-low-protein diet when postponing dialysis in the elderly: a prospective randomized multicenter controlled study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49:569–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Defagó MD, Elorriaga N, Irazola VE, Rubinstein AL. Influence of food patterns on endothelial biomarkers: a systematic review. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2014;16:907–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Nettleton JA, Steffen LM, Mayer-Davis EJ, et al. Dietary patterns are associated with biochemical markers of inflammation and endothelial activation in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83:1369–79.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Lopez-Garcia E, Schulze MB, Fung TT, et al. Major dietary patterns are related to plasma concentrations of markers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1029–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang Y, Mitch WE. Proteins and renal fibrosis: low-protein diets induce Kruppel-like factor-15, limiting renal fibrosis. Kidney Int. 2011;79:933–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Messina V. Nutritional and health benefits of dried beans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100 Suppl 1:437S–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Flight I, Clifton P. Cereal grains and legumes in the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of the literature. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60:1145–59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. van den Broek M, Leermakers ET, et al. Maternal dietary patterns during pregnancy and body composition of the child at age 6 y: the Generation R Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102:873–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Gao X, Wu J, Dong Z, Hua C, Hu H, Mei C. A low-protein diet supplemented with ketoacids plays a more protective role against oxidative stress of rat kidney tissue with 5/6 nephrectomy than a low-protein diet alone. Br J Nutr. 2010;103:608–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Gao X, Huang L, Grosjean F, et al. Low-protein diet supplemented with ketoacids reduces the severity of renal disease in 5/6 nephrectomized rats: a role for KLF15. Kidney Int. 2011;79:987–96.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Cahill LE, Peng CY, Bankovic-Calic N, Sankaran D, Ogborn MR, Aukema HM. Dietary soya protein during pregnancy and lactation in rats with hereditary kidney disease attenuates disease progression in offspring. Br J Nutr. 2007;97:77–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Bonacasa B, Siow RC, Mann GE. Impact of dietary soy isoflavones in pregnancy on fetal programming of endothelial function in offspring. Microcirculation. 2011;18:270–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement